Dylan and Cohen: Poets of Rock'n'Roll by David Boucher?

[Mark A. Murphy]

Fellow Dylan and Cohenites,

Has anyone read the above book by David Boucher? Can anyone recommend it to me?

[tomsakic]

It's worthy as a try to come with another criticism for Cohen scholars (so, serious attempts in criticism, not biography or popular book, Continuum press is serious university publisher), but I cannot recommend it. The man has fallen into the gap of Dylan and Cohen. Dylan parts are known (Dylan's turning into religious fundamentalism as one more way to run away from his 1960s image), while every chapter on Cohen finishes that Cohen is, well, "better" and that his religious statements (Ten New Songs as channeling of Zen, and Ramesh Balsekar) are, to say, ecumenic (he didn't use that word). But then, every next chapter on Dylan starts over again (Dylan is better, because he's Dylan), although the text proves different. As the cited lyrics proves that they're, simply, different artists and poets. Only their Jewish heritage and popular music context connects them.

To paraphrase Uncut magazine, this book only showed how Dylan and Cohen, two giants, were for decades wrongly put together.

My personal criticism of Boucher's book is that its theoretical background is accidental. The man has chose one essay by Garcia Lorca to support his theory of poetry, and some linguistic theoretician from early 20th century (Collingwood). The book is like it was written in vacuum or by total ignorant of modern literary theory. Hence, it's better to read Linda Hutcheon (classical poetry criticism, plus postmodernism), Stephen Scobie (Derridian criticism), or any of dozens of critics which wrote about LC from Freudian perspective, Feminism, Post-Colonialism, Canadian Studies, from topic oh Holocaust, body, etc. For classical poetry criticism I would turn to early Scobie, Hutcheon's book on his poetry, and early book by Michael Ondaatje.

If you're looking for biography, this is obviously not the one, although Boucher has written something between criticism and biography (that mean, in difference to all mentioned critics, he does follow both Dylan and Cohen chronologically, in structure of a biography).

Well, in any case, as being total ignorant of Dylan, I learned much about his career, and the book also shows the background (Beatniks, Root music) in great deal, and beside that, it's good to see how different Dylan and Cohen are. Anyhow, the "incriminated" theory part was a chapter titled Interpreting Dylan and Cohen, somewhere in the middle of the book. Anyhow, the fact that, after crescendo of conclusions about Cohen's poetic talents (which, ridiculously, in one moment were credited to his college courses in poetry?!), the next Dylan chapter starts with quotations (from Stephen Scobie, i.e.) which say that Cohen is great, but Dylan again better, that was simply stupid. The text of the book itself, the interpretation, shows not that's not true (I will not say that Dylan is not great!!), but - simply - that they're not the same type of poetry. That's all. We can argue, i.e., is Frost or Rimbaud better. That's simply not the idea.

Anyhow, to add my coin to it, I am interested in fact that the lines of tradition and influence are different. I mean, Patti Smith, Dylan, Beatniks, they all have pointed to Rimbaud as the source. While Cohen has read Rimbaud, but I think he's in completely different tradition (Mathew Arnold or Romantic poets, Yeats and Shelley and Keats, are more likely). That difference also points to differentiation between Cohen and Dylan, or Cohen and Beat at all. There's almost no Beat-style in Cohen, no Whitman. He's more articulated, far away from oral and street poetry (slam, we would say today), and there's more, let's say, Lorca in it.

[friscogrl]

i am reading it now and i like it.

[blonde madonna]

Thanks for your insight into the book Tom. It was great to hear someone else’s opinion. I agree with you but didn't post because I would never want to discourage anyone from reading a book and making their own judgment. It has some interesting background information into both artists and is not a difficult read.

So keep reading friscogrl, I'd be interested in your take on it (and check your message box when you get the chance ).

The title of Chapter 6 (magic, imagining, and inspiration) promised much and yet delivered little. The alternating chapters on each artist offered so little in the way of connection I wondered why he hadn’t just written two books. But the biggest disappointment was how little he actually referred to their lyrics. How can you even argue that they are poetry if you barely examine them?

Camille Paglia, in her book ‘Break Blow Burn’, wrote a piece about ‘Woodstock’ by Joni Mitchell that really shows how it can be done.

BM

[tomsakic]

Yep, the latest Camille Paglia book also blew my head (although it's little "back to traditional poetry criticism"). Sad that she didn't knew for Leonard Cohen when she wrote it (recalling that Canadian review arguing why she didn't take Leonard Cohen song instead of Mitchell's).

[friscogrl]

I have to be honest, I was primarily reading the bits about Cohen. I do not have the literary background to make a critique such as Tom's but i will start to read it with a more serious and critical eye. I am the sort that may not ' know much about art, but i know what I like'. plus i did read a review about Camille Paglia's book, "Break, blow, burn. i will try and pick it up since it is poetry critique geared to "the masses" and is probably right up my alley.

[sesdeb]

I am glad that there is some interest in my book, and I am grateful that some people have taken the trouble to reflect on it. Tom's take is interesting in that it suggests that implicitly I am saying that Dylan is better than Cohen. That is not the case at all. He also accuses me of being ignorant of modern theories of interpretation and aesthetics. Well, as a matter of fact I am not. Much postmodern interpretation I find unhelpful in relation to interpreting the lyrics of Dylan and Cohen. I am not a great admirer of Derrida. I admire both Gadamer and Ricoeur, and mention them briefly. The point of the book was to show that Dylan and Cohen are very different. Starting from the proposition that they are both iconic figures of the 60s and hailed as spokespersons of their generation I argue that we need a vocabulary in terms of which to compare them. Fundamentally, it comes down to asking the right questions, and R. G. Collingwood, whom Tom describes as obscure, but who is in fact the foremost philosopher of history of twentieth century, and the standard 'expression of emotion' theorist of art, helps us in this respect. I didn't claim that Lorca, Collingwood or Oakeshott give us the right perspective, just that they provide a useful perspective. It's perfectly all right to disagree.

David Boucher

[tomsakic]

David Boucher's book is coming out in Serbian translation, from renowned publishing house CLIO in Belgrade. Later this year.

[sesdeb]

Dear Tom,

I didn't know that. Where did you hear about the translation? I know that it is being translated into Japanese.

David

[tomsakic]

In their catalogue, and in the newspapers. I even saw the announcement somewhere online.

My friend was there a month ago, during Belgrade Book Fair - the book isn't out yet.

[tomsakic]

Nothing here yet - http://www.clio.co.yu/docs/ars/musica.html

But it is supposwed to be out in November - I found comments on some Serbian forum, with blurb from the book and first comments. Also, it's listed as "just published" in monthly bulletin from their National Library (on November 17). Plus, it's already listed at online bookstore, but without art cover, so apparently it isn't on sale yet: http://www.knjizara.com/index.php?gde=@ ... d%3D123202@

(thank God for Google:)

[sesdeb]

Thanks for the information Tom. Much appreciated. David

[tomsakic]

The book is finally out from February 6, 2009. ISBN 978-86-7102-312-2

http://www.yu4you.com/items/en/knjiga/item_9453.html (international orders)
http://www.knjigainfo.com/index.php?gde ... d%3D123202@
http://www.superknjizara.hr/index.php?c ... +rokenrola

[John Etherington]

Although I bought this book ages ago, I've only just got round to reading it, and I thought it was excellent. I don't think that David Boucher stressed a view of Dylan being superior, but it did seem that he was more familiar with Dylan's work. I say this because there are a few noticeable errors in the sections on Leonard. For example, Boucher says that in the late 70s Leonard had a severe breakdown, and that after regaining composure, he completed the songs for "I'm Your Man" (rather than "Various Positions"); also that "Joan of Arc" is from "Songs From a Room" (rather than Love and Hate"). However, the errors would not affect the general readers appreciation of the book.

Boucher's book has much to commend it. The section which describes the differences between the folk and beat movements is very clear, and Dylan's involvement with both of these is well explained. Boucher focuses on what is important in understanding Dylan and Cohen's political/social involvements, writing, and spiritual beliefs. It is interesting to note their shared interests in Judiasm, Christianity and Buddhism (also, it was the first time I had read about Dylan studying astrology). The book contains the best account I've read of Leonard's association with Daphne Richardson and his tour of mental homes in the early 70s. I would recommend it highly.

[sesdeb]

Dear John,

Thank you so much for your kind words. I have developed the connection between Bob Dylan and the Beats by relating them both to Dylan Thomas. Dylan Thomas was famous in America in the fifties and what lays claim to be the first audio book on Caedmon records sold half a million in its first decade. He travelled extensively criss crossing the States given poetry readings. The beats wanted to be famous like Dylan Thomas, and many have since payed homage to him, including Bukowski (This is What Killed Dylan Thomas). Two articles are due to come out in The Journal of Popular Music and The Journal of American Studies discussing these connections. They are: 'What's in a Name' and 'The Price of Fame'.

Best wishes, David